If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Just got my new OBUMMAcare rate in the mail. We currently pay $425.20 per month. The new rate is more than double at $924.97! More than a 100% increase and more than our mortgage (no escrows) Nothing affordable about that.

Americans morally opposed to funding abortion may unwittingly sign up for one that does due to Obamacare's "secrecy clause," the letter warns:

"[U]nder the secrecy clause, plans that cover abortion are only allowed to disclose the abortion surcharge 'as a part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment.' Many families may choose a plan that covers abortion without realizing it or because the plan is the only one that covers the critical care that their family needs."

An abortion "slush fund" bankrolled by a separate "abortion fee" charged to enrollees should also be struck from Obamacare, the letter says:

"Anyone who enrolls in a federally-subsidized health care plan that covers elective abortions will pay a separate 'abortion fee' of at least $1 per month into an abortion slush fund to pay for abortion on demand."

Just got my new OBUMMAcare rate in the mail. We currently pay $425.20 per month. The new rate is more than double at $924.97! More than a 100% increase and more than our mortgage (no escrows) Nothing affordable about that.

Just got my new OBUMMAcare rate in the mail. We currently pay $425.20 per month. The new rate is more than double at $924.97! More than a 100% increase and more than our mortgage (no escrows) Nothing affordable about that.

Ours went up to $1275.00 this year and is expected to go up 40% in January.....Just my wife and I, we are retired, but not yet on Medicare....we worked our whole lives to be able to retire early, now I am going to be sending $15 to $20K to my medical insurance group, they need my money to pay for the freeloaders that Obamacare requires to be covered. Repeat after me, Socialization of America.....like Obama promised "redistribute the wealth"

I thought this was real interesting. I can't imagine that someone who chooses the $11/mo plan or the $23/mo plan will not end up, ultimately, with unpaid medical bills due to the very large deductibles for those plans.

I do know that on Medicare, as one person, I pay about $170/mo for my supplement (including drug coverage), plus another $103 (or thereabouts for Part B). That's $273/mo for one person. Of course, for obvious reasons, Medicare does not have to get involved with birth control, abortions or maternity care

It would also seem, from the article, that "fairness" will not be universal, since some states will have multiple choices of insurors, but others will have none. It is also possible that as the program continues, insurors may choose to withdraw from certain markets in the future, leaving less choices.

Explained in another article was that in some states the costs will be less because those states had very high rates before. Other states which had low rates will see increases.

I'm not clear on whether the "tax credits" for subsidies can involve sending a check to the taxpayer when the subsidy might put their tax bill at less than the subsidy involved. Could that result in a net drop in FIT tax revenue?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Part of the reason that places like NY and CA are going to have lower rates is because currently their rates are sky high. Place with comparatively lower rates will see an increase. The higher rates in these places are what will be supporting reducing the rates for places where rates are now very high.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Part of the reason that places like NY and CA are going to have lower rates is because currently their rates are sky high. Place with comparatively lower rates will see an increase. The higher rates in these places are what will be supporting reducing the rates for places where rates are now very high.

I thought they were state exchanges. So I'm unclear on how one can offset another...

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

I thought they were state exchanges. So I'm unclear on how one can offset another...

I am sure you realize that calling them state exchanges is really In Name Only. Rules and regulations will be dictated by the Fed. Gov. Think about how Medicaid works. I am also sure you realize that the states that refused to implement exchanges, did so because of state funding requirements by the Fed Gov.

Last week, the Health Department reported the average monthly premium for Americans, before subsidies, would be around $328. Those who are eligible for subsidies are those who make up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. For an individual, this tops out at around $45,000 per year, and for a family of four, this cuts off at around $94,000 a year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

It would appear from these figures that most of those on Capitol Hill would not be eligible for these subsidies. I don't think any legislator makes less than $94,000, do they?

He points to the Congressional Budget Office’s own projections that six million out of an estimated 50 million people in the U.S. without insurance will enroll on the first year.

If most of those who enroll are the sicker people, the exchanges are in trouble from the get-go.

2016 will be a more crucial year to watch. This will be one full year after the employer mandate goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2015, and businesses with at least 50 employees will have to either offer coverage to workers or face a penalty of $2,000 per worker, per year.

Craig also expects momentum to build in December as awareness grows. Thomas says the under-65 population of insured could potentially double from between 800,000 and 900,000 to nearly 1.7 million.

If the estimates are that there are 15 million uninsured, is enrolling 1 million new people much of an improvement?
I can see the importance of the 2016 date, too. If small businesses cannot afford the new minimum plan requirements of O-care, and have less than 50 employees, if the employer coverage is dropped, there will be more people who will have no choice, but to join the exchanges.

We must also remember that the employer has an upper cap on how much they can contribute to the employee's coverage (a %-age of compensation, as I recall). If the employer provides insurance, the employees will not be able to join public exchanges. Thus, depending on the final rates, the employees could find themselves more out-of-pocket for their health insurance.

I begin to see why companies like Walgreen's have adopted the concept of the "private exchanges." Lower-paid employees may still suffer the most depending on whether the increased compensation matches up favorably with the rates for the new required plans.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.